Don't you feel that it would be beneficial? First of all, experience is beneficial. We've heard from Mr. Wouters, and I think you'd hear it over and over from deputy ministers, that there's a learning curve, and after a certain point in time you become more proficient in running that department.
In your notes here, you reference flexibility. Too often we've seen that flexibility translate into avoiding accountability. I'm a rookie MP; I mentioned it earlier. But I've seen several deputy ministers, in my short period here, in the same department, and they tend to be those departments that have the greatest number of problems. It still appears that there's no clear protocol for how to go about establishing accountability.
One of the things that our committee came up with, which we thought was eminently rational, was that there be at least a three-year term. Of course circumstances might arise that would absolutely necessitate a change of deputy minister, but then those sets of circumstances could very clearly be laid out and there could be a check list. Why would the Privy Council reject those recommendations?